Walking Eye interviews me
Troy_Costisick:
Ron,
I actually had 3 hours to sit down and spend any way I wanted yesterday afternoon (snow day in my area of the country). I really enjoyed listening to the podcast. I’d like to talk to you about a small part of it.
About things like imagery of the dragon and character birth being important to Gamists that you mentioned in part 2: I have experience in this and I’d like to see if yours is similar to mine. I’ve found that that in order for that stuff to matter it has to be tied to the Resolution or to the Rewards system for Gamists to really care about it. But not just the system as in the mechanics printed in the game books, but System as in how we decide what happens during play. Let me give a couple of examples to back up my point.
For instance #1- I played a lot of RoleMaster and MERP in my early days. One of the elements of the character sheet was a Demeanor. One of my fellow players put “Charming” on his. Later, he negotiated with the GM to use his Demeanor to get a barmaid to get him some time with her friend the retired adventurer. This was in lieu of some kind of influence roll using the typical resolution system.
For instance #2- Writing up a backstory for your character is a long held tradition in RPGs. But other than games like The Pool, it hardly ever comes up in play. However, there can still be rewards for doing it. I’ve played in groups where we begin by comparing backstories prior to play. It’s every bit a competition to see who hears, “Dude, nice story!” the most as it is to see who can pull off the coolest stunts during combat. This is a social esteem reward which is what Gamists are after most in the first place.
I don’t think that the imagery and backstory/birth of a character stuff matters as much to Gamists in other sub-systems of a game. For instance, in Chargen, imagery and history can certainly be part of a game’s mechanics, but if there’s no competition there for social esteem or those elements of the character never matter when it comes to the Gamble or Crunch, then they will most likely be glossed over or even discarded altogether once the players become familiar with how the game works. In combat sub-systems, if a bastard sword and a claymore deal the same amount of damage, have the same initiative modifier, use the same skill, and cost about the same amount of gold, which one the character is using become irrelevant unless there is some Reward (social or mechanical) for doing so. At least, that’s my experience.
Is yours about the same? Would you agree that the Rewards and/or Resolution Systems are what are prioritized most by Gamists when it comes to the medium of roleplaying? Am I using that correctly? :)
Peace,
-Troy
Ron Edwards:
Hello,
I'll respond to Troy first 'cause it's easier. My answer is "yes" ... but that it's incorrect to ascribe this connection you're describing as a feature of Gamist play specifically. I suggest that it's a feature of all functioning play, and that historically, Gamist play has typically been more successful/functional in the long run than any other sort. So historically, you're correct, not because Gamist-oriented groups have a special feature (Color + Reward), but because the other groups typically haven't been able to get their Big Model engine running very well over the long haul (either of a group or a person). When I say "typically" I don't mean "never ever," though - there are some exceptions.
Remember, I see Resolution as a subset of Reward in the first place, which might help explain my extremely broad claim above ("all").
Best, Ron
Troy_Costisick:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on February 18, 2010, 07:19:48 AM
Hello,
I'll respond to Troy first 'cause it's easier. My answer is "yes" ... but that it's incorrect to ascribe this connection you're describing as a feature of Gamist play specifically. I suggest that it's a feature of all functioning play, and that historically, Gamist play has typically been more successful/functional in the long run than any other sort. So historically, you're correct, not because Gamist-oriented groups have a special feature (Color + Reward), but because the other groups typically haven't been able to get their Big Model engine running very well over the long haul (either of a group or a person).
Yeah, I was just trying to build off what you said in part 2 Gamists. I didn't mean to imply that it was exclusive to Gamists. I just wanted to make sure my thinking was correct. This was a big stepping stone for me and my understanding of how RPGs work. So I'm glad I got a chance to listen.
Peace,
-Troy
Judd:
I want to add one thing more.
I have podcasted some and boy-howdy, I have fucked up an interview here and there. I have fucked an interview so badly that we had to just throw out the footage. I have fucked up an interview so badly that Clyde e-mailed me, frustrated, saying that now he had to interview John Wick so that someone could do it properly and get the good stuff out of him, the stuff we had missed, had skirted right around.
And I like that. I like that process of talking to people, trying to provoke and inspire and discuss in a way that makes our little sub-cultural niche of a niche is a better place. And I think Kevin did that here. He and Ron talked about cool shit and interesting stuff was said.
Bringing out this kind of response in me, bringing out this thread, is part of the juice.
greyorm:
(Holy gods, difficult to hear over the background noise on the recs.)
But re: feminism and underground comics and the confusion interjected into that whole discussion by the Moral Majority. The first thing I thought of where you were thinking of comics was the modern analogue of "fan fiction".
As an outsider to the scene who knows people heavily involved in it: it is majority-populated by female authors, with much of the subject heavily and blatantly sexual (and often in very non-conventional and even sometimes disturbing ways), who are often mothers, professionals, and others generally considered to be community pillars (writing under pseudonyms). Which seems to parallel the old underground comics community in terms of "who" and "doing what".
But that confusion that was introduced by the 80's/90's culture over what being a feminist/woman is has been inherited by that group such that you have these women writing fiction about often intensely sexual situations, and who are also very pro-female empowerment, some of whom are weirdly and incredibly opposed to nudity, pornography, fetishism, and other "anti-feminist" things.
To really explain just how deep this confusion runs, it is such that there are spats and fights between various authors/groups because one will proclaim something far too "squicky" or "traumatic" to be allowed in decent company, and saying such straight-faced while having written fics involving gang rape (or whatever). Or those who stand up for a woman's right to not be treated like a sexual object, while writing stories that treat women (or often men) as sexual objects, and defending those.
It's very...weird. Very confused. Very much a "we're all feminists here, but you're doing it wrong" sort-of behavior that I think relates back to those same vicious battles between feminist groups from the 80's. (And, perhaps tangential or pertinent, but the same sort of cultural-identity confusion you find in many activist groups today, that seems an inheritance from bedding down with the Moral Majority during that same period.)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page